Hello and welcome to Mind the Gap, a newsletter that looks at the weekâs gender developments. Reasonable doubt, said the Supreme Court while acquitting three men of a brutal gang-rape and murder. But did it really need seven years to reach that conclusion?
THE BIG STORY: Why did the Supreme Court acquit three men sentenced to death for gang-rape and murder?
At 9.18 pm on February 9, 2012, a 19-year-old woman working with a call centre at Gurugramâs Cyber City got off the bus to walk the remainder of the remaining 10-minute distance home at Chhawla Camp. Suddenly, to the shock of two friends who were walking with her, a red Tata Indica pulled up and dragged her in.
On February 13, the police arrested a man called Rahul who confessed to raping and killing the woman along with two other men, Ravi Kumar and Vinod.
Based on this confession, the womanâs body was found in a field in Haryanaâs Rewari district. It bore signs of unspeakable torture before her death. She had been attacked with car tools, glass bottles and sharp metal objects (Iâll spare you the details).
Police filed a charge-sheet in April and the men were put to trial by a fast-track court. In February 2014, the men were found guilty and sentenced to death â a sentence upheld by the Delhi high court in August that year.
Then, for seven years, nothing. On Monday, a three-judge Supreme Court bench, including outgoing chief justice UU Lalit and justices S Ravindra Bhat and Bela M Trivedi found insufficient evidence that the men had committed the crime, and set them free.
Read the Supreme Court judgement here.
Reasonable doubt
No matter how high the moral repugnance at a crime of this depravity, a conviction, let alone a death sentence, must be a water-tight investigation and trial. This was lacking, the Supreme Court noted: âThe law does not permit the courts to punish the accused on the basis of moral conviction or on suspicion alone.â
To examine the case against the men, the apex court asked for assistance from the Supreme Court Legal Services Committee, which assigned the case to senior advocate A Sirajuddin. Another senior advocate Sonia Mathur was appointed amicus curiae (friend of the court).
Amongst their findings:
The identity of the men in the abduction was not established.
The recovery of articles, including strands of the victimâs hair, was âhighly doubtfulâ and not mentioned by key witnesses. Recovery of articles were easily accessible to the public and not supported by independent witnesses.
The post mortem report did not indicate the time of death and the body, which despite remaining in the open for four days, as claimed by the prosecution, showed no signs of putrefaction.
The call detail records of the men and those of the deceased at relevant times were found to be at different locations.
Samples taken from the accused and victim were sent for forensic examination only 13 days after the crime, during which the possibility of tampering could not be ruled out.
Out of 49 witnesses examined by the prosecution, 10 were not cross-examined at all while other important witnesses were not adequately cross-examined.
âThe prosecution has to bring home the charges levelled against them beyond reasonable doubt, which the prosecution has failed to do,â the judgement noted. âThe court is left with no alternative but to acquit the accused, though involved in a very heinous crime.
But what about justice for the victim?
The womanâs family is understandably distraught at this turn of events. For 10 years theyâve waited for justice for their daughter, and that hope was dashed on Monday.
âWe have lost our faith in the judiciary...we have also lost the will to live,â the womanâs father, a security guard, said after the judgment.
âThe Supreme Court said that the trial court acted as a âpassive umpire,â Charu Wali Khanna, the fatherâs attorney said. âBut for seven years who sat over the case? Even after arguments closed on 7 April 2022, it took seven months for judgment to be pronounced.â
All legal options have not yet been exhausted, said Khanna. âWe can still file a review petition,â she said.
Central to the case are two questions. The first: Who is to blame for the shoddy investigation both by the police and the trial and high court? Why werenât questions asked? And what is the possible culpability of those responsible for the aquitall?
And the second: who raped and killed the 19-year-old? How does her family ever get closure?
REST IN POWER
Credit: Umar Ganie/ The Kashmir Monitor
It was a wedding video, Haye Haye Wasiey that went viral on social media and led to the meteoric fame of its singer, Reshma. One of the strongest voices for Kashmirâs third gender, their rise to fame was a âglimmer of hope for the marginalised community who battle socio-economic, political and mental health issuesâ, wrote KashmirLife.
Born into a family of eight siblings, Reshma dropped out of school after the fifth standard due to bullying and violence. Their struggle for acceptance within the family that was opposed to their career choice as a wedding singer mirrored the struggle for social acceptance by transgenders. âThey made their own space in society as a singer,â Srinagar-based LGBTQI activist Aijaz Bund told The Kashmirwallah.
Following their death of cancer on Sunday, thousands attended the funeral.
|